Will the SOPA bill kill the Internet?

It’s never happened before on a grand scale. The technique is now mostly used by online criminals and hackers trying to spoof real sites with fake ones, whether just for kicks or to convince unsuspecting users to turn over their bank account or credit card information. That raises cybersecurity questions.

Smith’s manager’s amendment attempted to knock out some of the concerns that the bill would wreak havoc on the Internet domain name system, which have been raised by cyber liberties groups, Internet engineers and some of the Net’s architects — such as Google’s chief Internet evangelist Vint Cerf.

Text Size

-

+

reset

The manager’s amendment removed language that would have required ISPs like AT&T and Comcast to redirect users to another place on the Web when they tried to access a site accused of infringement. It also notes the amendment includes a clause that would not authorize a court to issue an order that would hurt the domain name system.

But Internet engineers and advocacy groups still aren’t convinced.

The bills are written, they say, so that domain name filtering will become the preferred method for ISPs when a court orders them to block access to a rogue site. Even though this method isn’t mandated anymore, opponents argue that it’s a cheaper and easier way for ISPs to stop their customers from accessing a pirate site.

“It clearly endorses domain name filtering as the way to do this,” said David Sohn, senior policy counsel at the Center for Democracy and Technology.

SOPA gives an ISP that filters a domain name as a “safe harbor” for sufficiently complying with a court order.

Some critics argue that redirection would undermine an Internet security protocol called DNSSEC, which was largely developed by the Department of Homeland Security to make the Web more secure. For example, DNSSEC helps ensure people go to the authentic Bank of America website rather than an imposter one created by hackers.

Redirecting confuses DNSSEC so it “can’t differentiate a hacker removing stuff from a government directive to the ISP to remove the content,” said Internet engineer Dan Kaminsky, who’s advised such companies as Cisco, Avaya and Microsoft and is an authority on the domain name system.

Stewart Baker, former DHS assistant policy secretary and partner at Steptoe & Johnson, noted that this could discourage companies from continuing to implement these security protocols across the Web.

Supporters of the bill say that it doesn’t require redirection and won’t undermine these security protocols because there are other options. Dan Castro, a senior analyst at the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation, pointed out: “One option is for ISPs using DNSSEC to simply not resolve the domain names of foreign infringing sites that have signed domain names. But the reality is that most infringing sites are not using signed domain names.”

The MPAA’s O’Leary took issue with the claim that the bill would force ISPs to filter domain names, noting that Comcast — which also owns NBC Universal — came out in support of SOPA. “By definition, it’s voluntary and if you don’t want to do it, you won’t do it,” O’Leary said. He also said the engineers’ claims about impact on the domain name system is a case of critics rolling out “hypothetical after hypothetical about why we can’t do this and why we can’t do that” to curb online piracy.

The markup adjourned Friday after the House Judiciary Committee considered only half of the roughly 66 amendments — mostly from foes — in a move seen as a victory for opponents. But Smith quickly sent out a notice that the markup is to resume Wednesday, Dec. 21 at 9 a.m. In a statement, Smith added that said “not one of the critics was able to point to any language in the bill that would in any way harm the Internet” and their “accusations are simply not supported by any facts.

This article first appeared on POLITICO Pro at 5:39 a.m. on December 16, 2011.

Readers' Comments (49)

It's a ridiculous bill. It sort of makes sense if you only apply it to companies outside of the U.S. legal system. But as currently written, it makes it way to easy to shut down a site for unintentional copyright violations. Copyright holders already have legal protections at their disposal.

Rep. Lamar Smith’s (R-Texas) Stop Online Piracy Act, the subject of a combative markup in the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday and Friday that will resume next Wednesday, and Sen. Patrick Leahy’s (D-Vt.) PROTECT IP Act,

These two old farts probably do not even know how to use a computer. They are being paid by someone to take these positions.

Short answer yes. If you like the ability to use Google or face book or read blogs, if this passes, they will all be gone within a year's time due to law suits. The bills are very badly flawed and need to be completely rewritten to allow for free interchange of ideas, while protecting intellectual property rights. The bills as currently written are too broad and will give the US government the type of control over the internet that Communist China try’s to have.

Watching the live stream, it's patently obvious that the instigators of this bill know very little about how the internet even works, yet the opponents of it are well-versed in its implications. The ineptitude of these people is astonishing, and the bill is RIDICULOUS.

Very disturbing. We also have several justices on the Supreme Court who don't believe the right to privacy is inferred by the constitution. The Senate is a cesspool of lobbyist thralls... but I have some hope for the House. Time to see if this freshman class of tea party republicans can stand up for libertarian ideals. I'm not optimistic though, most of them are neocons in libertarian clothing.

As huge, intrusive and regulatory the federal monster now is, I'm dead set against any new power of control given to it. It's already a creature so out of the control of the people that its really at best a "benovolent despot". This is another example of something that will infact morph into a huge bearuacracy that in answers to no one and like the cancer that government has become will metasti and grow. Anyone who can see can tell the our Federal Government has become in effect a cancer that grows at an alaming rate and in the end leaves us, the people facing two choices. It will either kill the host, our country and in effect us, or will require radical surgery to literaly "cut" out the diseased tumor of the monsterously bloated beauracracy it has become. I believe that Thomas Jefferson was correct when he said that "revolution every now and then was necessary" or something to that effect.

If you’re wondering why lawyers and Hollywood folks would get behind legislation to censor the Internet, you only need to listen to former Senator Chris Dodd now the head of the MPAA, who last week explained to Variety that the lobby is only asking for the same kind of power to censor the Internet as the government has in the People’s Republic of China:

“When the Chinese told Google that they had to block sites or they couldn’t do [business] in their country, they managed to figure out how to block sites.”

Here's a rare opportunity to get past knee-jerk partisanship, since there are opponents & supporters in both parties.

Instead of looking at party labels, just follow the money - see who's getting the big contributions from Viacom, Disney, Pfizer, etc. & there you'll find the SOPA supporters. Opponents would be anyone who has ever used or ever plans to use Wikipedia or Google.

You write this article without mentioning the head of MPAA? Former Senator Dodd?

"How do you justify a search engine providing for someone to go and steal something?" he asked rhetorically in a recent interview at the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers conference. "A guy that drives the getaway car didn't rob the bank necessarily, but they got you to the bank and they got you out of it, so they are accessories in my view." --Dodd

The real problem is that content is not made internationally available. A website I used recently to watch football games in America was blocked to international viewers for copyright reasons, yet the game is offered to Americans for free. Why? I just happen to be an American expat living in Australia. We also cannot purchase a "gamepass" from ESPN because-- we live overseas!

Also, many people overseas pirate American TV shows, because their own countries TV outlets are too patriotic or stupid to show them. e.g. We've had no choice but to download Boardwalk Empire because no television outlet here has shown all of the episodes. One showed a few and then just inexplicably axed it. Why can't "capitalist" see that there is money in making this stuff easily available at a modest, affordable price.

SOPA is so disastrous because it would force changes to the Domain Name System and effectively create a blacklist of Internet domains suspected of intellectual property violations. Civil liberties groups and the ACLU have criticized this approach; so have free-market and libertarian groups including TechFreedom and the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

As huge, intrusive and regulatory the federal monster now is, I'm dead set against any new power of control given to it.

Too late, take a look at the McCain-Levin amendment to the defense spening bill, to be signed into law by Obama. As a US citizen, you now have 0 rights to due process of law on the mere accusation of being a terrorist, which can mean among other vague definitions, having more than 7 days of food in you home.

Whatever else it does, it will certainly weaken the influence we have with other countries where the internet is concerned. Programming our name servers to lie, especially based on unproven accusations, will put us in a place even China has been reluctant to go. Once censorship starts , a battle will begin between those who want to control what we can hear and see and those unwilling to put up with it. The history on these things does not show the censors winning. If they did, "Reading Lolita in Tehran" wouldn't be a book.

The damage caused by these laws far exceeds any benefit they could provide. I don't generally listen to music but I am sure looking forward to the recording industry going out of business, and the sooner the better. It is a bad enough having the NeoCons trying to destroy our rights without having private companies involved.

Heh, I haven't heard any angry supporters of this bill yet talking about how patriotic and just it is. The think tanks must have been caught of guard. People will probably have to wait until the end of the day for prepared talking points to show them how this fits into their narrative of how courageous and moral Americans think.

I'm just going to say the following: Write down the names of every single Congressperson supporting this garbage and vote them out next year (Republican, Democrat or Independent). That's it. Let them think about that.

So if I own a large company and can afford lawyers to go to court and accuse your smaller company of IP theft I can get a court order to block your website. Who gets to decide? Does it need to have a trial or can a judge just decide without hearing all the facts? Seams to me this just empowers those who already have power.

Secondly if something gets put that is illegal, how long do you have to take it down? Once you do what would you need to do to remove any block on your site? This sounds like it's going to be thrown out by the SC. Way too much power to block free speech.